The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why is it a crime if I do it but not if Microsoft does it?

Many developed countries have criminal offences of computer trespass which, essentially, create a crime if someone interferes with a computer system by altering data or otherwise alters the way a computer works without the computer owner's authorisation.

Recently I have been getting a popup from Microsoft that my Windows is not genuine. It is a full-on PITA nag box that pops up just about any time anything different happens on my computer. I'd mind it a lot less if (a) my Windows really wasn't genuine and (b) it hadn't started after I made the foolish mistake of trying to download yet another of the many Microsoft fixes for its notoriously defective products which, up to that point, had always recognised my system as genuine. Apparently it's my fault that Microsoft's system can't recognise its own genuine products.

If I put a nag box on the CIA's computer I'd probably spend the rest of my life in gaol, or only half of the rest of my life if I put picture of my bum over Bill Gates' face on Microsoft's site. But f***ing Microsoft, and sundry other companies, can interfere with our computers on the basis of their automated and incompetent software and we're expected to accept it meekly, despite them getting governments around the world to create laws to make it an offence to interfere with [their] computers.

I can guarantee that if I went to any police station to complain about this I'd be laughed out of the station, although the law makes no distinction between me and Microsoft. But if Microsoft and many lesser corporations were upset they'd go to about one or two levels below the highest police officer and get me charged for putting a nag box on their system saying, for example, "This box will keep appearing until Microsoft removes its nag box from my computer.".

Given the size of the Windows user base, it seems rare for this kind of thing to happen. It's hard to imagine that Microsoft would want that pop-up coming up if your copy of Windows is authentic, so there must be some kind of problem.

Still, your reaction of blaming Microsoft on some kind of legal/ethical level is sort of the classic knee-jerk reaction, which warrants the classic knee-jerk response: 'if you dont like Windows, don't use it'. People have been complaining [wrongly] that they are subject to Microsoft whim and that no competition can occur, but Linux and OSX users prove that wrong. If you dont' like Microsoft, why spend your precious time complaining about it - just switch.

Windows is installed on your computer legally. The popup is just part of the Windows installation.

Windows is installed on my computer legally, at my expense. I expect the bloody thing to work.

Now MS says, after previously recognising it as a legal copy for years, that it isn't.

MS didn't ask me first if it could put a wrong pop up on my computer that my copy isn't legal. It just got it wrong on some automated rubbish at its end and it now denies me service and has trespassed on my computer by putting a pop up on my computer.

Your legal analysis is pretty questionable. Microsoft doesn't have to ask you if they can pop-up a window, and you don't have to ask them if you want to uninstall it. Sounds like you are just angry at Microsoft for a technical glitch, which isn't a very sound legal foundation.

Given the size of the Windows user base, it seems rare for this kind of thing to happen. It's hard to imagine that Microsoft would want that pop-up coming up if your copy of Windows is authentic, so there must be some kind of problem.

Still, your reaction of blaming Microsoft on some kind of legal/ethical level is sort of the classic knee-jerk reaction, which warrants the classic knee-jerk response: 'if you dont like Windows, don't use it'. People have been complaining [wrongly] that they are subject to Microsoft whim and that no competition can occur, but Linux and OSX users prove that wrong. If you dont' like Microsoft, why spend your precious time complaining about it - just switch.

Given the huge size of the user base; the countless errors in anything MS puts out; and the knowledge of anyone with any experience of the level of faults in any large-scale and or complicated system right up to erroneous nuclear missile launches, or at simpler levels just routine banking; I'm probably just one of few hundred thousand people on the planet with the same probem.

How about reversing the alleged knee-jerk reaction? If MS doesn't like my installation, why don't they just leave it alone instead of installing stuff on my computer that continually interferes with it? What gives them the right to inflict their mistakes on me and why should I put up with their mistakes?

I can't imagine any country where a pop-up like that would be illegal.

I can, and lots more than most people would imagine as most people on the internet have not the faintest idea of the legal risks they run with many of the things they do. If I put a joke pop up on a CIA computer, or a bank or Ford or GM or MGM or any other major institution computer, I can be prosecuted for computer offences in most Western countries. My point is simply that the reverse should also be true, and it is if the law is applied equally,

Here is just a sample, from where I live, in Victoria, Australia, but there are many others in other countries:

247C. Unauthorised modification of data to cause
impairment
A person who—
(a) causes any unauthorised modification of data
held in a computer; and
(b) knows that the modification is unauthorised;
and
(c) intends by the modification to impair access
to, or to impair the reliability, security or
operation of, any data held in a computer or
is reckless as to any such impairment—
is guilty of an offence and liable to level 5
imprisonment (10 years maximum).

247G. Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted
data
(1) A person who—
(a) causes any unauthorised access to or
modification of restricted data held in a
computer; and
(b) knows that the access or modification is
unauthorised; and
(c) intends to cause the access or modification—
is guilty of an offence and liable to level 7
imprisonment (2 years maximum).
(2) An offence against this section is a summary
offence.
(3) In this section "restricted data" means data held
in a computer to which access is restricted by an
access control system associated with a function
of the computer.

Obviously there are some technical issues about what constitutes 'impair', 'access', 'modification' and so on but I can guarantee that if you or I get into CitiBank's computer in the US and have it generate smilies instead of amounts due we will be found guilty of these sorts of offences.

So, why can't Microsoft be found guilty of the same offences for interfering with our computers?

Did you install any software before it started happening? You can return defective software and have it replaced, if you think it's worth the effort, will fix the problem, and are within warranty period. Hopefully packaging says that product is guaranteed to be free of defects, etc.

Did you install any software before it started happening? You can return defective software and have it replaced, if you think it's worth the effort, will fix the problem, and are within warrantee period. Hopefully packaging says that product is guaranteed to be free of defects, etc.

No, the problem arose after installing various service packs and updates for Windows and IE and I can't remember what other MS products over a long period, without any problem. Then there was a very short period of maybe a day or two when I was trying to instal the latest update, which wouldn't instal properly, and since then I've had this MS rubbish that my genuine product isn't; that MS won't recognise it as genuine any more; that I can solve this problem by paying them around $300 for a genuine copy of Windows for which I have already paid; and the irritating nag boxes telling me that I have a dud product when in fact the morons at MS have managed to set up their online downloads to corrupt my product, for which they expect me to pay to fix. Not surprisingly, I think MS can get stuffed!

1) the reason it seems its one law for microsoft and another for you is because the bank/microsoft/CIA are not lazy and will initiate a lawsuit

2) microsofts products are not always defective and further more to that point are probably the easiest to use and definitely have increase the number of people able to use a computer over the past 10-15 years.

3) linux and OSX have as much problems, just less virus problems, the malware and virus problems stem out of IE and the fact that IE is not originally a microsoft product. with any luck the new IE will be a bit more secure.

4) Once you agree to install those updates you agreed to the install of the pop-up box. not a court in the land would convict microsoft of checking that your using a legal version of their software.

5) if you are having difficulties regarding WGA why have you not contacted microsoft support and asked for assistance in the matter and had it resolved by now

6) if your so anti microsoft then switch to linux, but good luck to you, ive tried and i can, ive install 10 different flavours of linux including some of the biggest name linux installs, ive yet to get my wireless card working. and ive been trying with programs like ndiswrapper for months. also manufacturers significantly less support linux installs and some dont even provide a linux driver. linux is great, but isnt consumer ready for joe-blogs, similar goes for mac's but you at least have a wider choice of products with mac and actual support.

Legally your as welcome to try sue microsoft for what you think to be an infringment of the law

Factually you dont believe you have a solid case and wont actually ever initiate an actual law suit. you wont even ring microsoft for some help regarding the issue, i doubt you'll ring your lawyer assuming you have one, can afford one , and are old enough to avail of one

It's not... he's just mad and is blowing off steam. Unfortunately for him, he did it in public and there were a lot of clear-headed people to bring him back down to reality

You agree to the licensing agreement when you install or run an application. I'm positive that the Windows licensing agreement covers this and it is perfectly legal.

Did you try contacting Microsoft support about the problem instead of just badmouthing them?

BTW, I got sick of Windows so I switched to a Mac and have 2 Linux servers. I still have a few windows machines (even have windows installed via bootcamp on my mac) but got rid of most of my headaches.

1.It's not... he's just mad and is blowing off steam. Unfortunately for him,

2. he did it in public and there were a lot of clear-headed people to bring him back down to reality

3. You agree to the licensing agreement when you install or run an application. I'm positive that the Windows licensing agreement covers this and it is perfectly legal.

4. ... if you don't like it don't use it

1. You are perfectly correct. I am mad. And with good reason. Unfortunately for MS, there are other people who are even madder and who are litigating exactly the issue I am complaining about, while various government authorities are looking at it. I should have thought that people who chose to criticise me for lacking clear-headeness and who are supporting the supposed right of MS unilaterally to impose its terms on me, and other users who object to the dictatorial policies and practices of Microsoft and other commercial giants, would have been well aware of current issues which show that there is a great deal of concern about the issue I raised, which are covered on many sites, such ashttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07..._disadvantage/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...windows10.html
It is clear from the posts so far that there is either total ignorance of current issues or a refusal to recognise them, either of which is most disturbing when the strong opinions expressed by previous posters demonstrate a deplorable lack of knowledge of current legal, internet, MS and related issues about which the posters have so confidently posted.

2. See above. I think a court action,where people are actually backing their opinions with real money, is rather closer to reality than anonymous and ill-informed opinion expressed on an internet forum.

3. Please post the precise clause(s); statute(s); and judicial decision(s) that you are positive make compuer buyers and users subject to the terms of a contract with MS, as well as the novel concept in contract law that a purchaser of a computer from a seller with Windows installed is bound by a contract between the seller and MS to which the buyer is not a party. If this is good law and sound policy, I am sure you will agree that if you buy, say, a Ford car filled with fuel from X oil company, then you will be happy to buy all your fuel from X oil company for ever more and that X oil company has every right to compel you, and every subsequent owner of your car (or you if you were not the buyer of the new car) to fill your tank with its fuel for the life of your car.

4. As for the 'if you don't like it, don't use it' idea, I agree entirely. I don't want to use the 'not genuine Windows popup'. So far, everyone is effectively telling me that I should use it, but as you recognise that I shouldn't have to use it if I don't like it, could you tell me how to get rid of something I don't like and don't want to use?

2. See above. I think a court action,where people are actually backing their opinions with real money, is rather closer to reality than anonymous and ill-informed opinion expressed on an internet orum.

You do realize that you live in a country where people will sue for the smallest thing don't you? The fact that a lawsuit has been filed does not mean that it has any merit.

Originally Posted by szn

backing their opinions with real money, is rather closer to reality than anonymous and ill-informed opinion expressed on an internet orum.

I agree, therefore I will cease reading this thread due to it being started with anonymous and ill-informed opinions.

If you want to *****, then *****, but don't expect the world to agree with you and get upset when it doesn't.

The fact that you clicked the little box that says "You Agree to these Terms" is the "clause". You agreed to the software in the download and in those terms it probably mentioned something about pop-ups, etc.